The judgment was delivered by the Aveiro Court in April 2024 and confirmed by the Porto Court of Appeal and more recently by the Supreme Court of Justice (STJ).
The STJ’s ruling, dated October 2 and reviewed today, denied the appeal filed by the defendants, upholding the previous judgment.
“Under common experience rules, it was not foreseeable that the actions of the plaintiff (and the other person) near the balcony railing would lead to the unfortunate outcome of the balcony falling as an ordinary, normal, or natural consequence of the act — nor that it would imply that the guard/handrail would break,” the judgment stated.
The incident took place on July 23, 2016, during a party at a friend’s house, whose property is rented from the defendants.
The court found that the woman and another individual on the balcony fell about three meters to the ground.
After the fall, the plaintiff was treated at the scene by a team from the National Institute of Medical Emergency and transported to the Emergency Department of the University of Coimbra Hospital Center, where she was admitted with various injuries.
As a result of the accident, the plaintiff lost teeth, now requires corrective glasses, suffers from memory issues, and continues to experience pain, particularly headaches and spinal pain that necessitate daily pain medication. She has been unable to engage in any physical activity, unable even to walk for half an hour.
The woman filed a lawsuit against the defendants seeking compensation of 449,562.67 euros, alleging that the fall was due to the balcony railing giving way, lacking iron bolts to properly secure the handrail to the wall base structure.
The defendants contested, arguing that the balcony balusters were well-constructed and properly maintained, showing no signs of degradation.
In the first instance, the court partially upheld the claim and ordered the defendants to pay the plaintiff about 76,000 euros for both material and non-material damages.
Dissatisfied, the defendants unsuccessfully appealed to the Porto Court of Appeal and then to the STJ, which confirmed the judgment for compensating the plaintiff for her damages.
